Standing Committee F

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Drugs Bill

Clause 18 - Orders under this Part and guidance

Roger Gale: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. There might be one or more Divisions in the House this afternoon. That will inevitably intrude upon the time available for debate, and a considerable amount remains to be done. I mention that because, as things stand, there is no injury time for suspensions for Divisions, and the Committee will therefore have to finish its work by 5.30 pm.
It is open to the Committee, by arrangement through the usual channels—and, of course, in discussion with the Chairman—to extend the sitting later into the evening to compensate for time lost during Divisions. I say that simply to inform the Committee. It is not an instruction; I simply remind the Committee of the present situation.

Clause 18 - Orders under this Part and guidance

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
Question again proposed.

Cheryl Gillan: The clause deals with orders and guidance. An enormous amount of the substance of the Bill will be enacted through order and secondary legislation. It falls to me to question the Minister about subsection (2), which makes two provisions—first, that orders may
''make different provision for different police areas''
and, secondly, for those 
''who have not attained the age of 18 to attend . . . an initial assessment or a follow-up assessment''.
How will the provision for different police areas be varied? Will persons under the age of 18 fall within the Bill's provisions in some police areas, but not others? That is my primary concern.

Caroline Flint: I shall deal first with the question of age. Clause 18 provides that any order made by the Secretary of State under clauses 9(4) and 10(5) to amend the age at which persons may be required to attend the initial and follow-up assessments must be approved by resolution of both Houses. That will allow the power to require persons to attend such assessments to be extended to young people if it is considered necessary and appropriate. It also requires the police and others carrying out assessments to have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State under part 3 when exercising any  functions under that part. That will ensure that note is taken of any additional safeguards thought necessary to protect the rights of those affected by the provisions.
The hon. Lady is, I hope, aware that we are piloting drug testing on charge, and voluntary arrest referral for young people, which comes in at a later stage than for adults. We may want to go down that route in future, so we are considering the emerging findings of those pilot schemes to see whether the same requirements are necessary for younger people as for older people. 
The figures on testing, for example, are telling us whether the amount of class A drugs showing up on testing is comparable to adult testing. It will allow us better to think how we might plan the expansion of testing and assessment for young people. It is not that we do not think it important, but work on testing adults is further advanced, and we want to ensure that the Bill leaves open the opportunity to expand. As we are talking about young people under the age of 18, we think it appropriate that such provisions should be discussed by Parliament. As during our debates over the past few weeks, people will probably want to discuss capacity, and what support and treatment is available. I hope that that answer satisfies the hon. Lady. 
The other question was about the reference to different police areas. The hon. Lady is probably aware that the drug intervention programme focuses on areas with the highest levels of acquisitive crime linked to drug misuse that we can identify. Although the programme is not yet available throughout the country, we have identified the basic command unit areas that have the most problems in dealing with such crimes and the associated drug taking. That will allow us to include other police areas as and when appropriate, based on need and on their capacity to deliver. I hope that reassures the hon. Lady.

Cheryl Gillan: That reassures me, but will the Minister further reassure me that she looks forward eventually to having uniformity of provision—necessity driven, of course—across all police areas, rather than the current patchy provision?

Caroline Flint: I think that as necessity drives, which is what is important, we would like to see further opportunities to expand what is already a good foundation for tackling drugs and crime. We must, however, look at the necessity for that because we must justify the public expenditure and ensure that there is the capacity to deliver. We are building capacity, reducing waiting times and making sure that people get appropriate treatment that works.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 - Anti-social behaviour orders:

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Cheryl Gillan: We went through clause 19 so quickly that I was not able to ask my question about a suitably qualified person—the Minister will have to write to me. I wanted to know when the specifications will be forthcoming from the Secretary of State.
I move swiftly on to clause 20, which deals with antisocial behaviour orders. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) made most of the points that I wish to make in his opening address on Second Reading. I want to give the Minister the opportunity to pick up on those points. A new order can be made alongside an ASBO when drug misuse has been a cause of the behaviour that led to the ASBO being imposed. 
Statistics on page 27 of the Home Office publication, ''Perceptions and experience of antisocial behaviour: findings from the 2003/2004 British Crime Survey'', show that 25 per cent. of people experience drug-related incidents of antisocial behaviour. Paragraph 56 of the explanatory notes shows the size of that problem. Some 15 million incidents fall into that category. I believe that there could be 4 million acts of drug-related antisocial behaviour annually. 
Paragraph 56 states that 
''it is estimated that this proposal will produce some 100 orders per year, resulting in an annual assessment and treatment cost of approximately £0.37 million. The Criminal Justice System costs are minimal.''
That means that one in 40,000 drug related antisocial incidents will be picked up by the provision, so how effective does the Minister envisage the remedy will be? The measure will also be delayed until April 2006, and I would like some explanation of why it will take that long. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden said, it makes the provision meaningless for another 15 months, which is a fairly long time. I hope that the Minister will address those points, which were, rightly, raised on Second Reading.

Caroline Flint: The clause deals with antisocial behaviour orders, as set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. ASBOs address the antisocial behaviour of adults, rather than that of young people, for which there are already measures in place. ASBOs are about what one should not do—they impose a curfew, or state that a person should not go to a particular area—whereas the conditions that we are discussing are about what people should do. There is already a provision for young people. That might go some way towards explaining the total number of incidents of antisocial behaviour by adults and young people.
We do not want to miss the opportunity to further the work that we are doing on antisocial behaviour, and to consider how we can develop a framework that includes what adults could do—for instance, if drugs are involved, that issue should be addressed. Some adults may be covered by other provisions. Sometimes, but not exclusively, adults involved in antisocial behaviour are arrested—and possibly charged—under other parts of the criminal justice system. In such cases, they are covered by other arrangements for testing and assessment.

Cheryl Gillan: In that case, what about the position on equal treatment of alcohol misusers on ASBOs, in whose cases the drinking is shown to be the cause of the antisocial behaviour?

Caroline Flint: That is an important factor. The hon. Lady will be aware that the Government are doing a great deal to tackle the disorder on our streets that is associated with alcohol. We have, for example, raised the fixed penalty from £40 to £80—I hope that that figure is correct—and that is beginning to bite. It is a useful measure—if somebody goes out, not only on Friday or Saturday but on any night of the week, and decides to drink alcohol to excess, it is a sharp sanction that can be implemented quickly. The police prefer to issue fixed penalty notices than to take somebody to the station.
Before an ASBO is issued, we expect to see a sustained period of antisocial behaviour that cannot be dealt with by fixed penalty notices. It does not apply to somebody who is merely picked up, drunk, on one Saturday night; there have to be other factors. That goes for other antisocial behaviour as well. I hear what the hon. Lady is saying about alcohol, and she will be aware that we are considering how we can develop our services for dealing with drug treatment—particularly those for illegal drugs—and how we can better bring them together with measures on alcohol. A number of drug action teams have become drug and alcohol action teams. We must try to deal with the issue without making any commitments that we cannot meet. We chose April 2006 because we need to have time to set up the mechanisms to enable the measure to work in communities. However, we wanted to take the opportunity offered by the Bill to obtain the support in principle for the measure. That will allow us to go back into communities to develop the services. 
For now, the powers in respect of drug-related antisocial behaviour will be attached to ASBOs. We shall keep the measure under review and the Secretary of State will have the power to add other matters, as appropriate. In general, ASBOs are used for other antisocial behaviour offences, not just drugs. A lot of people who do not necessarily have a drug problem commit antisocial offences in the community. The Home Office and the Department of Health have worked together on the matter and we believe, despite the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, that the measure will be used relatively rarely, given what I have said about young people being covered in other ways. In order to get it right, we need a lead-in time, working with agencies across Government, to work up what will be done in practice. We have an opportunity to ensure that the new civil order is helpful. I hope that we can develop it; it is about having a carrot and stick, specifying what people should and cannot do, and getting to the underlying reasons behind antisocial behaviour, although drugs are not always the reason. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 - Inclusion of mushrooms containing

Alistair Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in clause 21, page 21, line 8, leave out 'A' and insert 'C'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 24, in clause 21, page 21, line 9, leave out 'A' and insert 'C'.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who tabled the amendments, is not present. I move the amendments in his stead, because they raise important issues on which I would like to hear the Minister's views, but I am not inclined to support them—[Interruption.]

Mark Todd: We have all afternoon.

Alistair Carmichael: The classification of these drugs, and the way in which it has been approached, is a matter of some significance. The Minister should be prepared to put the Government's thinking on record, and I am surprised that she regards the subject with some levity. It is incumbent on her to explain why the Government have chosen to classify these drugs as class A. What was the reason for the current law? Why were magic mushrooms—if I may use the vernacular—classified as class A drugs only in a prepared form and not in their fresh form?
My view, which I put on record on Second Reading and which grows stronger every day, is that this issue highlights the inadequacy of current classifications in the 1971 Act. On what basis has the Minister decided to classify these substances as class A? Is she trying to draw a parallel with other class A drugs such as heroin and cocaine? Is she looking at harm to the individual or to wider society? Why do the Government suddenly feel it necessary to act on this? 
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw suggests that we should classify these substances as class C, but I do not think that they sit well in class C or in any other classification under existing law. It does not make sense to put them in with substances such as anabolic steroids, temazepam, and diazepam, which make up the bulk of class C drugs—but I thought that about cannabis too. Will the Minister tell us why the Government are making these substances class A drugs? What was the original reason for the current law?

Brian Iddon: The clause, small though it is, has created more controversy in my mailbag than all the other clauses put together.

Roger Gale: Order. Let us get the ground rules right. I am perfectly happy to have the stand-part debate now and to embrace it with the debate on the amendments, but at the moment we are debating the amendments only.

Brian Iddon: I apologise, Mr. Gale. I would prefer to address this issue in the stand-part debate.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister was on the Front Bench, next to  the Home Secretary, on Second Reading. She may recall that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) asked the Home Secretary about this issue, and that the Home Secretary was, unfortunately, unable to answer him. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) has asked similar questions, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to tell us exactly what her response to the amendments is. I also hope that she will be able to satisfy us as regards the clause stand part debate that we shall have in a moment.

Caroline Flint: I was amused at the start of this discussion because we have an opportunity to discuss the whole clause in a clause stand part debate, but the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland had to move an amendment that he did not actually support.
On the amendments, we must be aware of the fact that the clause does not reclassify these mushrooms; it is about clarifying the law. I shall try to explain to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee where we started, where we have got to and why we have some problems, and I am sure that those points will be picked up in the clause stand part debate. There are problems interpreting the law, and the courts feel unable to adjudicate on the issue. Prosecutions have been brought to court, but the police and others feel that the law is being circumvented in different ways. People might have their own views about that, but I hope to explain in the next few minutes why we need to clarify the law. Of itself, that does not change the position on classification, and we could have another debate about that; we are trying to make sense of the law because we have got ourselves between a rock and a hard place in terms of the current interpretation of the law. 
Clause 21 clarifies and extends the law on so-called magic mushrooms to remove any doubt that the importation, exportation, production, possession and supply of fresh mushrooms, as well as prepared ones, is an offence. On Second Reading, there was cross-party support for the measure, although there were those on both sides who queried why we were introducing it. Some hon. Members said that they felt it was inappropriate to classify hallucinogenic mushrooms as class A drugs. There is a debate to be had about that, and people have their own views on the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West obviously felt quite strongly that the classification was inappropriate, and he probably continues to do so. 
The amendments would reclassify magic mushrooms as class C drugs, but they do not seek to reclassify the active ingredients, psilocin and psilocybin, which would remain class A drugs. I am unable to accept the amendments. 
The clause is not about the classification of magic mushrooms, and as my right hon. Friend Home Secretary said when he presented the Bill, the active ingredients are already class A drugs. I accept that people may not feel that they should be, but they are. Therefore, when mushrooms are prepared or in the form of a product, they are already class A drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Alistair Carmichael: On Second Reading, several hon. Members said that much of the debate was about the signals that we send out. Is the Minister content that the signal that she should send out is that magic mushrooms are somehow the same as heroin and cocaine?

Caroline Flint: I am not saying that they are exactly the same as heroin and cocaine, but when the issue was discussed it was felt that the harmful effects of their active ingredients, psilocin and psilocybin, were such that those ingredients should be classified as class A drugs. We know that heroin and cocaine can have a different effect on the individuals who use them, but that was the classification into which it was felt these ingredients should be put. I will talk more later about the international treaties that we have signed and their effect on this aspect of the matter.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister has been generous with her time. She will know that different drugs in different forms and preparations can be classified differently, as happens with amphetamine. Surely the mere presence of psilocin in psilocybin should not necessarily automatically place magic mushrooms in class A?

Caroline Flint: The debate offers us a chance to explain what has been happening. A legal loophole has been created enabling fresh mushrooms to be sold and imported with the idea that people will prepare them—at which point they come within the classification. A problem has been the development of outlets where an attempt is made to get round the law by selling fresh mushrooms, in packets or otherwise. The sellers expect people to prepare the mushrooms, and eventually to be affected by the ingredients that are classified A.
The clause is a response to a relatively new phenomenon of the importation of fresh mushrooms, which are currently not held to be a product or preparation; that practice leads to an anomaly in the system. 
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
On resuming—

Caroline Flint: As I was saying before the Division, the measure deals with the relatively new phenomenon of imported fresh mushrooms that may not be held to be a product or a preparation. It ensures that magic mushrooms, even when fresh, are class A drugs, and the Government hope that that will act as a deterrent for those wishing to sell or import hallucinogenic mushrooms.
Officials informed the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs that the provision would be included in the Bill, and the ACMD agreed that the law would benefit from clarification in this area. Not all Members will be aware that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of outlets selling imported fresh magic mushrooms in the past two years, and there is growing concern about their impact on public health. I have recently had several letters from Members of Parliament whose constituents have expressed concern about the open sale of the mushrooms.  Some constituents have reported very negative effects from taking them or have expressed alarm about their sale to minors. 
The Government estimate that more than 400 establishments in the United Kingdom sell these drugs, and it is estimated that hundreds of kilos are being imported, predominantly from Holland. I believe that members of the Committee will agree that it is not right for these drugs to be sold openly on the high street.

Brian Iddon: I know that this point was made on Second Reading, but will my hon. Friend clarify yet again the position on mushrooms growing wild in woods and the ownership of those woods? Do the people who pick those mushrooms become instant criminals, if caught?

Caroline Flint: We do not believe that someone would be committing an offence solely because a naturally occurring substance—a magic mushroom—was growing in their garden or on their land, or if they came across it in some woods. If necessary, we will consider bringing in regulations when this provision comes into force to make it clear under what circumstances it will not be unlawful to possess magic mushrooms. That will include mushrooms growing without the owner's knowledge in a garden or on land. A farmer might own woods on which these mushrooms may be growing without his knowledge, and we would not want him to be caught by the provision. Imported mushrooms and their sale are a particular problem.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister said that anyone growing magic mushrooms unknowingly would not be committing an offence. That is absolutely right, but surely a person in that position would be guilty of possession the second they became aware of the mushrooms, unless they immediately destroyed them. The two elements of possession under section 5(2) of the 1971 Act are knowledge and control. If the mushrooms are on someone's land and they know that they are there, they are guilty of possession.

Caroline Flint: I will check that. One of the questions is whether a person is picking the mushrooms. I understand that as soon as someone starts picking the mushrooms the active ingredient that creates psilocin starts to formulate itself, although psilocybin is present in fresh and prepared mushrooms. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on that, because he is right that we need to clarify the circumstances, while dealing with what we think has become a problem for law enforcement and the courts.
There has been a lot of debate about what exactly the harms and potency of such mushrooms are. Perhaps the name ''magic mushrooms'' makes them sound quite harmless, but they are hallucinogenic. Psilocin and psilocybin are class A drugs because they are similar in effect to LSD and have hallucinogenic qualities. They can trigger psychosis and are very harmful to those with mental illness, and can also be harmful to those with a heart condition. Because of the hallucinogenic effects, users are vulnerable to self-harm while under the influence and, as with LSD,  those using mushrooms may experience negative flashbacks. 
The international position on mushrooms is as follows. The 1971 United Nations convention on psychotropic substances places both psilocin and LSD in schedule 1, the highest level of control. There is an international consensus that such substances present serious harms. For those reasons it is our view that magic mushrooms should remain a class A drug. 
I think that the hon. Gentleman asked why fresh magic mushrooms, which are not a product and not prepared, seem to be excluded from the 1971 Act. The short answer is that we are not really sure and we do not even know if that was the intention. However, we can say that the problem has since worsened. Thinking back over the past 30 years, I can only say that marketing fresh mushrooms in the new way was perhaps not a problem then and that it was felt that defining the drug as a prepared product was enough, without creating problems to do with naturally growing, fresh magic mushrooms. 
That said, although magic mushrooms have for a number of decades not been a huge problem, the emergence of 400 outlets in the past few years is an example of the direction in which we might be headed. We must be mindful of that. We do not know for certain, but the problem may have been less of an issue when the 1971 Act was drafted and not at the forefront of the drafters' minds then.

Brian Iddon: I understand that under the Vienna convention 1971 fresh mushrooms are considered legal, and that there is a case before the European Commissioners. Does my hon. Friend have any information about that? What bearing does that case have on our discussions?

Caroline Flint: I will look into the case that my hon. Friend cites. I should like to say something about our European Union colleagues and their respective mushroom controls. In Belgium, the possession and sale of hallucinogenic mushrooms is prohibited, in Denmark psilocybe cubensis is listed as a controlled plant, and Germany has comprehensive legislation banning possession and supply of substances where abuse for the purposes of intoxication is envisaged. In Poland, mushrooms are treated as psychoactive substances. Thus any general rules on possession, cultivation and introduction to the market also apply. We do not have a relevant list of all the EU countries, but Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and the Slovak Republic have controls in place. In Holland, prepared mushrooms are illegal, but fresh mushrooms are legal.

Roger Gale: Order. I said at the start of this debate that I was fairly relaxed about whether or not we had the stand part debate with these two amendments, or separately. One or two hon. Members, however, indicated that they wished them to be held separately. We are straying very wide of the amendment, Minister.

Caroline Flint: I apologise for contributing to the widening of the debate, Mr. Gale.
The International Narcotics Control Board has recently written to the Dutch health ministry, expressing concern about the open sale of mushrooms in Holland. There are clearly some outstanding issues about this, and how one country is potentially contributing to the problems of another. As I understand it, most of the importation of these fresh mushrooms is from Holland. 
As to fresh mushrooms growing on land, if the person does not know the mushrooms are growing, they benefit from a defence, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said. We will look at some further regulations to ensure that those who know that mushrooms are growing on their land will not be committing an offence if they are not picking them, and therefore preparing them. There are some issues there, and I will look into that matter further and examine different scenarios to ensure that we are getting that right. 
We would be willing to consider advice on mushrooms from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and will consult it when considering any reclassification, which is what these amendments attempt to do. We already have a power to change the classification of substances in schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, by an Order in Council under section 2 of that Act, following such a consultation. We keep the ACMB informed of developments. Regarding our plans for the measure in this clause, it too feels that the law needs to be clarified. That said, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendments.

Alistair Carmichael: I may seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). However, I thought it would be helpful to have a fairly focused debate on classification. I am a Liberal Democrat, and I realise that one does not always get what one wants in life. Unfortunately, we have not really had the debate that I had hoped for. The Government's case on classification is generally not particularly robust. I am surprised that nobody in the Home Office, during the drafting of this Bill, thought to ask why the distinction was made in the first place, and to go to Hansard for 1970 or 1971 for an answer. If one is minded to change something, it is always a good idea to know the reason for it being in the shape it is. I cannot believe for a second that Parliament unintentionally created this distinction between prepared and unprepared mushrooms.
The Minister has given no proper explanation of the parallels being drawn between mushrooms and other class A drugs, such as heroin and cocaine. She just seems to shrug her shoulders and say ''We are not saying that they are the same''—except that when the same penalties are imposed on them, then, effectively, to many people, that is saying that they are the same. 
As I said, this has not been the debate that I had hoped for. There are other issues that have been raised in the course of the debate that I will not respond to at this stage, because I shall seek to catch the Chairman's  eye again in the course of the stand part debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
On resuming— 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Cheryl Gillan: I do not want to delay the Committee because I have a great deal of sympathy with what the Minister is trying to do. However, I have had an unprecedented amount of post, from individuals and from the most extraordinary number of organisations. I had no idea that so many people were concerned about mushrooms in a way that I did not envisage when thinking of the humble mushroom.
It all sounds terribly innocuous, but having read quite a large amount of the scientific background I do not think that it is as innocuous as it at first appears. That is why I have sympathy with the Minister in trying to sort out the anomaly that has arisen—regardless of the debate about whether the correct classification is A or B. We shall have a debate along those lines later if there is time. 
I want to give the Minister the opportunity to comment on a series of questions that has been asked by another organisation. I should also say that the London Drug Policy Forum, which is the London community against drugs, was almost in isolation in writing to me to welcome the provision. It welcomes the fact that the Bill seeks to improve the range of responses available to the police and courts to deal with drug-related crimes, and to address areas such as the sale of hallucinogenic mushrooms, which are currently not covered in criminal law. I thought that that was rather nice, and I wanted to give the Minister a little support, because it appears that everyone is arguing against the provision, and I cannot imagine why. 
A wonderfully named organisation, the Magic Mushroom Consumers Group, which says that it is protecting the rights of magic mushroom consumers in the UK, asked several questions. I do not want the Minister to dwell on them, but she should have the chance to bat back. To be fair, its points should be heard. I have often been in the position of putting across points made by organisations with which I do not agree, and this is one of them, but I would like her to have the chance to respond. 
The group believes that adding unproblematic magic mushroom consumers to the statistics detailing class A drug users, whom they believe to be problematic users, which is interesting in the light of the report on heroin taking that was released this morning, would falsely exaggerate the level of problematic drug use in the UK. The Minister should respond to that point. 
The group also believes that there will be an increase in the number of wild mushroom poisoning incidents in which eating the wrong sort of mushroom  can make one seriously ill or even cause death. I hope that that is not the case, because there are some terrible toadstools or mushrooms such as fly agaric, which is a red toadstool with white spots that is used to illustrate fairytales. It is not a true psychodelic drug, but it can kill if ingested, so I hope that the group is wrong about the provision increasing the number of wild mushroom poisoning incidents. 
The group's argument that there will be a decrease in the perception of the dangers of addictive class A drugs sits alongside the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that people will be inclined to consider drugs such as heroin or crack cocaine to carry a similar risk. Magic mushrooms really will have gone to its brain if it believes that heroin or crack cocaine will do little harm. 
The group's argument that there will be a reduction in respect for drug laws and policy among young people really worries me, because it means that magic mushrooms have been marketed so widely that it openly admits that they are being sold to young people, presumably to minors. That is a serious problem, which the Minister is right to address. Indeed, the report that I obtained from the Library on the Bill said that there were some 300 outlets, but the Minister says that there are 400 shops and market stalls throughout the UK acting as outlets. It is alarming to think that they are selling magic mushrooms to children. 
The group made another point about the loss of revenue to the Treasury and an increase in revenue for illegal drug dealers. Fortunately, it has not put a value on the prohibition market, but it believes that the price and the illicit attraction will increase. I honestly do not believe that. There are so many other illegal drugs around that I cannot believe that the coffers of illegal drug dealers will swell enormously, ostensibly because the people who deal in magic mushrooms are illegal dealers without the routes into the supply that legal shops have. There is, however, a pertinent point to be made. Given that there are about 400 outlets selling these mushrooms illegally, the Minister must clarify when the clause will take effect and how long the shops will have to dispose of their stocks. Indeed, she should clarify whether those stocks should be destroyed, whether there will be any inspection regime, whether the dealers will be convicted immediately of an offence the day after the legislation comes into force, and how notification will be made to the outlets. 
I hope that the Minister will tell me that there is a mistake in clause 24, entitled 
''Short title, commencement and extent''.
It states that clause 22 will come into force on the day on which the Act is passed. I hope that she will add section 21 to that provision.

Brian Iddon: I, too, have received representations from organisations such as Cactus Trading Wholesale Ltd. and the Magic Mushroom Consumer Group, along with individuals from as far away as Scarborough, Streatham in London and Collyhurst in Manchester. The clause has raised a lot of interest. I  am amazed by that because I did not think it would be such a big problem. I make that admission from the word go.
It is true that concern has been expressed about the clarity of the law, and I agree that it should be clearer, as do DrugScope and Turning Point—and, incidentally, Transform, which is against the prohibition of all drugs. Transform, of course, would not prohibit psilocin or psilocybin or the magic mushrooms themselves. It is significant that DrugScope and Turning Point both argue that they ought not to be class A drugs. 
I am reminded that the Runciman committee and the Select Committee on Home Affairs asked the Minister to ask the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to consider the reclassification of drugs. It has also been suggested that LSD and ecstasy should not be class A drugs, although I have some doubt about that. Nevertheless, the matter should be referred to the advisory council, and I was pleased to hear the Minister say this afternoon that that will be the case. The consensus seems to be that drugs ought to be classified according to the harm that they present to individuals. I hope that all hon. Members agree; it seems a common-sense view. That is one of the things that worries me about the clause. 
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West tabled a question asking in how many deaths drugs had been a factor between 1993 and 2002. The table accompanying the answer, in Hansard for 31 January 2005, at column 593W, shows figures for heroin and morphine, for cocaine and crack cocaine, and for psilocybin or magic mushrooms. The table shows only one death for 1993 and none for the remaining nine years resulting from the use of psilocybin or magic mushrooms. Incidentally, thousands of deaths resulted from heroin and morphine, and hundreds of deaths from cocaine and crack cocaine. The harm presented by magic mushrooms, and psilocin and psilocybin, cannot be compared with the deaths presented by the other class A drugs, but that is how those compounds will be listed. 
Other evidence has been provided to us on safety. I should tell the Committee that my PhD thesis, based on three years' research, was done on 5-Hydroxytryptamine when it was hardly known. It is now better known by the trivial name serotonin, the brain hormone that modifies our mood swings. The spectrum of levels of activity of serotonin in the brain is such that those who have a low activity will be at the depressed end of the spectrum, and those with a high activity of serotonin in the brain will be at the highly active, or even schizophrenic, end of the spectrum. Somewhere in the middle is the band of those who are considered to be normal—at least most of the time. 
My PhD thesis was about trying to synthesise brand new organic molecules to act as agonists or antagonists of serotonin in the brain. I have been interested in brain chemistry for a long time, and psilocin is related to serotonin. I will not give its full chemical name, although I have it here in a scientific paper. Psilocybin is an ester of psilocin. They are inter- convertible. When psilocybin gets into the body, it will turn itself into psilocin, so we cannot talk about psilocybin without talking also of psilocin. 
Both of the compounds found in magic mushrooms interact at one of the serotonin receptor sites in the brain. Interestingly, tranquilisers and anti-depressants act at the same receptor site; that is what we are dealing with in terms of physiology. The paper was produced recently by the Heffter research centre at the psychiatric university hospital in Zurich, and covers the acute psychological and physiological effects of psilocybin in healthy human beings. It is a double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-effect study. I shall not read out the names of the researchers, but their conclusion in the abstract is significant for this debate. They found 
''no cause for concern that psilocybin is hazardous with respect to somatic health.''
That concurs with the number of deaths that we have not seen related to magic mushrooms and the two important chemicals in them. 
Hon. Members will have received the study on psilocin and psilocybin by the co-ordination centre for the assessment and monitoring of new drugs that was presented to the Dutch Government. In its executive summary, it stated: 
''This drug is not associated with physical or psychological dependency, acute toxicity is largely limited to possible panic and anxiety attacks and, in terms of chronic toxicity, the worst that can happen are flashbacks. Consequently, use of paddos (hallucinogenic mushrooms) does not, on balance, present any risk to the health of the individual.''
We have just moved cannabis from class B to class C on the ground of the harm that it presents to society, yet here we are being tempted to put fresh magic mushrooms into class A, along with psilocin and psilocybin, which are already there. I have a problem with that. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which comprises scores of experts in the area, should consider that before any statutory instrument places such substances in class A. 
Magic mushrooms do not produce any addiction, they are not considered to be toxic and I can find evidence of only one death. We have also received the Powell report. That is interesting. It gives the species of magic mushrooms—there are many—and the range of districts in Great Britain in which they grow. I shall not read it out, but I can tell the Committee that one quarter of a mile from my house there is a small wood near a school. The children there well know the months during which the mushrooms grow. A few silly individuals, silly because they are under age and their brains are still developing, trip up to the woods—[Interruption]. Yes, they trip. I shall leave it at that. 
Psilocin and psilocybin have been compared with lysergic acid diethylamide. That compound is definitely a hallucinogen. We know that it can create in people a panic so great that individuals have been known to jump out of the window and kill themselves. There is no doubt that LSD is a dangerous compound. I do not advise anybody to take it. However, psilocin and psilocybin have been classed as hallucinogens, although they are compounds that produce psychedelic effects. The Powell paper coins the term  ''emphyogenic'', meaning that the compounds give people a deep, spiritual feeling. That is precisely why the Aztec and Mayan civilisations in south America used those compounds in their religious ceremonies. I do not see many accounts of those people dying in large numbers as a consequence of using the compounds in the course of worshipping their gods. Therefore, I question whether the compounds are so dangerous that they need to be classified as class A under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. I hope that the Minister has some evidence to that effect. 
As the Minister has just said, the Home Office is getting worried about the increasing numbers of traders selling these mushrooms throughout London and elsewhere in the country. They even sell them on market stalls, and there are special shops in which one can buy all the gear. I gather that some strange people—I do not actually know any of them—visit these places quite frequently. 
My fear is that if we ban something, those who use it, but who do not want to break the law, will merely try to find something else. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham mentioned one such compound, and many other mushrooms and fungi contain compounds like psilocin and psilocybin. People may well try to find other, more dangerous substances if we ban magic mushrooms. 
Of course, there is khat, too, and there is an amendment on it. People might well discover that the Somali community uses khat, and its use may spread. However, there are many other such naturally occurring plants, vegetables, berries and fruits from trees. All one has to do is invade the internet to find out about them; all this stuff is on the internet, and children, in particular, surf the internet. I am concerned that we will drive people away from substances that, although not completely harmless, are certainly not as harmful as the clause makes them out to be. I therefore have some difficulty with putting magic mushrooms in class A or even banning them altogether. 
Finally, I think that we are acting a little soon. We should gather more evidence, because not enough research has been done on many aspects of drug misuse. We also need far more research on magic mushrooms before we consider passing Acts of Parliament, as we are in the process of doing this afternoon.

Alistair Carmichael: I do not seek to emulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and his scientific expertise; he and I are at opposite ends of the scientific spectrum. He did his PhD on serotonin, but I was politely invited by the head of science at Islay high school not to bother the science teachers after the end of my second year. I did not understand half of what the hon. Gentleman said, but he said it with great authority, so I hope that somebody here did. I certainly could not help but believe him.
In our earlier debate, the hon. Gentleman asked about possession by virtue of land, and the Minister said that it could be excluded by means of a statutory instrument. While the Committee was adjourned, I had a brief conversation with some of the Minister's  officials, and I accept that that route is open to the Government. However, I am not persuaded that such an exclusion will be any easier to achieve in secondary legislation than in primary legislation, and I hope that the Minister and her officials will consider the problem between now and Report, because the law of unintended consequences dictates that some people will be mistakenly caught by the provisions. Furthermore, there are always those who go out of their way to put themselves on the wrong side of the law because they feel that some point of principle is at stake. All of us have no doubt had people come to our constituency surgeries who fall into that category. 
The hon. Gentleman referred to a case that is, I think, currently before the European Court of Justice. The basis for it is that fresh magic mushrooms are not illegal under the Vienna convention, so their prohibition would constitute a breach of free trade rules. Such a novel and ingeniously constructed argument would never have occurred to me. Perhaps that is why I was never a very successful lawyer. However, if such a case is on the go, the Committee should be made aware of it and of the Government's ingenious and creative lawyers' assessment of it. If the Minister would write to the Committee about that, I would be exceptionally grateful. 
The hon. Gentleman suggested that other substances would be sought if we excluded this species of hallucinogen and referred to the internet. For once, I am ahead of him, because I made short use of the internet yesterday. We have all spoken about the range of briefings that we have received, and I have received as many as anybody else, but one of the most remarkable things has been the number of researchers from all parties who have sidled up to me at different points and expressed their concerns about the subject. 
It was pointed out to me that the most widely identified alternative is Salvia divinorum, the leaves of which are smoked—it says here—and contain another powerful hallucinogen, salvinorin. Relatively little is known about the possible harms of salvinorin use, but it is widely available online and in what the briefing calls ''head shops'' in a variety of preparations. The Transform Drug Policy Foundation's briefing states: 
''The spice nutmeg also is also psychoactive when consumed in larger quantities.''
That was news to me, and no doubt dishes will be proscribed from women's institutes the length and breadth of the country now that we have discovered the possible uses of nutmeg. 
Having been made aware of Salvia divinorum, I typed it into Google and, sure enough, there is a ream of websites selling such things. The first site contained five pages of alternative substances. Salvia divinorum is there; so is the fly agaric mushroom and Mexican tarragon, Tagetes lucida, which is described on the site as 
''a beautiful, bright green perennial herb from the Sierra Mandre Mountains of Mexico.''
We would not want to proscribe something like that, would we? It goes on: 
''It is used by the local Indians recreationally as well as in the kitchen.''
Of course, such substances will be the next fall back. Will we then include them in the schedule? 
The point that I am making is that the piecemeal approach to the classification of drugs—taking cannabis from class B to C and clarifying, as we are today, the question of fresh magic mushrooms—is unsatisfactory. All that we will be doing is getting involved in a rolling programme of reclassification. The hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that we should be classifying drugs according to the harm caused. If there is an argument for the prohibition of anything, it must surely be to prevent people from doing harm to themselves and others. That should be our starting point. 
On the basis of the hon. Gentleman's analysis, it is difficult to see why magic mushrooms would be classified as class A. However, having said that, it is equally difficult to see what other classification they would properly fit under. The fact is that we have had the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 for 34 years this year. Surely the time has come for a comprehensive review. Such a Drugs Bill would be useful in the run up to an election, and it is a great pity that we have not had it. We have had a running repair and sticking plaster approach. 
The arguments raise as many questions as they answer. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham mentioned the magic mushroom consumer group; I must gently chide her for coming close to misrepresenting its position sometimes. As for whether ''young people'' should automatically mean minors, there are many young people who are not minors, and clearly the market in question is more popular with young people. 
The market already exists. The history of prohibition over the 34 years in which the Misuse of Drugs Act has been in force has not been one of unmitigated success. There was an opportunity to consider how to deal with this matter differently. That does not mean that we would not eventually have concluded that we had to classify the substances in question as the clause does, but I fear that the rather rushed approach that is being used—and the fact that we have not yet concluded the details of all the defences suggests that it is a rushed approach—means that we are missing an opportunity for a wee bit of creative or lateral thinking. Such thinking might enable us to make the relevant drugs law more effective, because it would have more credibility among those likely to interact with it.

Caroline Flint: Magic mushrooms fall into two categories, essentially. The first category is indigenous to the United Kingdom and is known as liberty cap. It has a short harvest in autumn. The sale of those mushrooms is not known to be significant or systematic. The second category is Psilocybe cubensis. Types available are usually Mexican, Indian and Colombian, and they are often grown in  Holland and imported to the UK. They are cultivated specifically to be turned into a marketable product.
Hon. Members have suggested that we are making an act unlawful. The problem is that the Government were pretty clear about where we thought the law on magic mushrooms stood; we thought that capturing mushrooms, in the sense of preparing or producing them to be acquired and used for their hallucinogenic qualities, was enough. However, in one way or another people have tried to find a way round the law, which is what we are trying to deal with. 
In many respects we are not really suddenly making magic mushrooms illegal. I spoke earlier, on the amendments, about the legal position. People might have a different point of view about the classification, but the law is clear about the properties of the mushrooms when fresh and when prepared. We are trying to deal with people who try to find a way round the law, which has made law enforcement difficult. The judge in a case in a case in Gloucester Crown court on 14 December recommended that Parliament consider new legislation to clarify the legal position and put matters beyond doubt.

Brian Iddon: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware that the industry has asked the Government to consider regulating the sale of the products and licensing them. Would not that be a more acceptable way forward, and would not it protect young children from using magic mushrooms?

Caroline Flint: If I were to accept that, it would be tantamount to accepting that the properties of the mushrooms in use present no problem. I shall expand in a moment on the relative harm of the products. We should be aware that it is because of their hallucinogenic properties, and the consequences of those when the mushrooms are used in the same way as LSD, that they have been placed in class A by previous UK Governments and internationally. That is not to say that the effects are exactly the same as heroin or crack. One is very much a stimulant; the other has a much more ''downing'' effect on individuals. It is recognised, however, that these mushrooms have harmful properties. To go down the route of regulation is not, therefore, a direction that the Government are minded to take.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister is outlining a very interesting and important line of reasoning here. There are all sorts of substances and preparations that have harmful effects. On the basis of what she knows about these substances, how would she rate the harm caused by them as against that caused by alcohol or tobacco?

Caroline Flint: We could have a discussion on every single substance this afternoon. There is a problem with the hon. Gentleman's line of argument.

Alistair Carmichael: It was a question.

Caroline Flint: Question and line of argument, then. In his earlier contribution, one could almost infer that he was saying the failure of our system of classification and prohibition meant that we should legalise all these drugs. I understand that some people hold that view.
I am not saying for one instant that navigating our way through the issues of substance abuse is easy. It is  not. One of the things we must constantly look at is the way in which substances are used and abused. I do not know what synthetic drugs might come on to our radar in five or ten years' time. The fact that there is no perfect answer to all these situations does not mean we should not do something about some of the substances of which it is felt, in the national and international arena, Governments need to be mindful. I will talk about some estimates of the use of these drugs, and the escalating problem due to the nature of the selling of these fresh mushrooms in some of the 400-plus outlets I have described, a little later.

Brian Iddon: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that there is a great deal of controversy over the use of the word ''hallucinogen'' attached to psilocin and psilocybin. With hallucinogens, there is a great danger that people will harm themselves. I have mentioned one of the effects of LSD—it was fed to some members of the Army at Porton Down more than 30 years ago, and they developed tremendous energy and even chopped down trees while under its influence.
Psychedelics do not fall into that class, however. They do not give people that urge to have great strength or to harm themselves. I mentioned that these two compounds, psilocin and psilocybin, give people a deep feeling of spiritual contentment. I know the Minister has been in correspondence with Professor David Nichols, who has also objected to her frequently using the word ''hallucinogen'' attached to psilocin and psilocybin. He has admitted to her that, occasionally, a person will have an hallucination while on psilocin or psilocybin, but that it is very rare indeed.

Caroline Flint: I am not a scientist, but I have looked into some of these areas. My hon. Friend talked about the entheogenic properties of these mushrooms, which literally means ''the god within''. In that sense, people who apply this term are talking about the effect of any drug creating an uplifting spiritual experience. I have had a letter or two from people who clearly refer to this experience they have when they are partaking of magic mushrooms.
The harm of magic mushrooms may be disputed but, as far as I understand it, their hallucinogenic properties are not. Hallucinations are one of the main effects that make the drug user want to use these mushrooms. Hallucinations are one of the main effects that make the drug user want to use these mushrooms. A recent Dutch government study in 2000, to which my hon. Friend referred, states that a usual dose of 10 g 
''leads to illusions and hallucinations . . . LSD and psilocybin work according to the same pharmacological principle.''
A recent Swiss study in 2003 refers to hallucinogenic mushrooms. Dr. Sam Bonnet of Bristol university accepts that there are hallucinogenic effects among users. 
There is clearly a body of evidence that recognises that hallucinations are part and parcel of the experience of using these mushrooms. For certain people, that can be incredibly harmful. The Dutch report refers to the impact of people using mushrooms  if there is an underlying heart condition, or mental health problems.

Cheryl Gillan: I have been listening to what the Minister has been saying on this subject. Although I did not touch on it when I made my remarks, I looked into some of the alleged effects of these drugs.
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
On resuming—

Cheryl Gillan: Just before we were interrupted, I was going to support the Minister. I, too, used the same tried-and-tested means as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and went on to the internet, because I needed to understand what we were dealing with. I found relevant descriptions of the psychedelic experience, as it applies to mushrooms, at www.thegooddrugsguide.com. In some cases, the effects are very alarming and include strong hallucinations, with objects morphing into other objects, and some loss of reality—time becomes meaningless and senses blend into one. [Interruption.] I think that that sounds absolutely terrifying. It is said that that experience is rare, but it involves an almost total loss of the visual connection with reality. The senses cease to function in a normal way and the loss of reality becomes so severe that it defies explanation.
I hope that the Minister agrees with that description, knowing what the effects are on people who may have a disposition to mental illness. We are talking about the severe outcomes of taking such drugs.

Caroline Flint: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that hallucinations are dangerous. There is an increased risk of self-harm, paranoia attacks and highly disturbing experiences, because hallucinations distort people's sense of what is around them. Depending on where someone takes drugs that cause hallucinations, the dangers can be very serious.
It is easy to say that because some substances have been used in some cultures and in certain situations, they can be applicable to our society, but that is not always the case. For instance, there have been debates about what is appropriate with khat and whether it is a stimulant. In certain societies and under certain conditions, a wraparound culture applies to the use of certain substances, but it is not necessarily applicable in the UK in the 21st century, given how we work, live and socialise. Let us think about the issue—if somebody was having hallucinations and got inside a car, I would be very worried if I was driving down the same street. 
The proprietors of the outlets, which are sometimes in the head shops that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned, or in street or market stalls, believe that they have found a loophole in the law, in that an offence is committed under the 1971 Act only if the mushrooms are prepared in any way, such as being frozen or powdered. Those who have prepared mushrooms in that manner have been successfully prosecuted, so the law is clearly seen to work. However, mushrooms that are packaged and  preserved are technically fresh at the point of sale and therefore not caught by that legal definition. That has caused problems with law enforcement and for the courts, which is why we are trying to tackle the situation. 
The legislation makes it an offence to make the active ingredients of mushrooms—psilocybin and psilocin—into a product. Psilocin and its ester psilocybin are both controlled under the 1971 Act as class A drugs. Magic mushrooms can contain both of those properties, but are not controlled; it is not illegal to possess, supply or cultivate them in their raw state. That was partly because it was not seen to be a problem. However, the British crime survey of 2002–03 shows that about 180,000 of 16-year-olds and upwards—the definition in the survey is usually those aged 16 to 59—have taken mushrooms. All the indications are that that trend could be going up due to the massive expansion of sales in the form that I have described. Clearly, that is of concern. 
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham talked about fly agaric or Amanita muscaria mushrooms. For those who do not know those terms, they are the red and white mushrooms that we have seen as children in our fairy-tale books, sometimes with a little elf sitting on top of them. The fly agaric, or fairy, mushroom does not contain psilocin or psilocybin, but produces a powerful hallucinatory effect. As the hon. Lady pointed out, the substance muscaria is highly poisonous if taken in its raw state, and that has been a sufficient deterrent to prevent drug users from experimenting with it. Its prevalence in the UK is extremely low, and there are no plans to control it because the fact that it is highly poisonous has, thank goodness, been enough of a deterrent. When I was growing up, we did not pick or take any mushrooms, but relied on local supermarkets or market stalls to provide us with ones that could be eaten safely. 
The hon. Lady also asked when the measure will come into force. The answer is as soon as we have made the regulations. As I said, we have to consider the situation with indigenous mushrooms growing in the wild and on people's land. I hope that we can sort that out a short time after Royal Assent, so that there is no delay.

Alistair Carmichael: It would help if the Minister could assure us that the commencement order under clause 24 will not be made until the other relevant orders relating to possession arising from the ownership of land are made.

Caroline Flint: I think that that is all right, but I will have a closer look at it to double check.
From what has been said by many members of the Committee, it is clear that retailers are fully aware that we are trying to close this loophole, so their awareness of what is going on is pretty much there. In relation to compensation, I do not think that it is right to compensate people for trying to find a way around the law. I think that such people are breaking the law. We  need to ensure that it is clear beyond all reasonable doubt.

Cheryl Gillan: I agree. I do not think that anybody's business is going to turn on whether they continue to trade in this substance, but it is fair that whatever order is made should specify a time by which they should be aware of it. It would be unfortunate if the time limit were a matter of days. Obviously there is a large lobby, as the Minister said, but the substance is sold by what I think are called head shops, and news of legislation sometimes takes a little longer to reach such places. We should be fair to the traders rather than bringing the axe down immediately. A definite date should be set.

Caroline Flint: Yes, it is important to have a date of commencement.
In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, clause 21 will not commence until regulations are made providing for exceptions to the offence of possessing magic mushrooms. People are following our debate avidly, and through the normal channels, our Home Office websites and the newspapers, we will let them know when that clarification of the law comes into effect. 
I should clarify something that I said earlier as I would not want to mislead the Committee. When citing a Dutch Government survey, I spoke about a usual dose of 10 g of fresh mushrooms, but there will be only 10 micrograms of psilocybin in the mushrooms. I wanted to clarify that because 10 g of psilocybin would almost certainly lead to allusions and hallucinations; I meant 10 micrograms of psilocybin. 
When answering my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East, I referred to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. However, I did not say that we were asking the council to review the classification of the properties of magic mushrooms. I said that we are in touch with the council about developments in the production and marketing of the mushroom. 
I know that people feel that we should clarify the situation, but we are not minded to reclassify for the reasons that I outlined earlier, especially our commitment to the conventions that we have signed and the fact that the chemicals that we are talking about are hallucinogenic. We therefore think it right to keep them where they are. None the less, the council keeps drugs under review and will continue to do so. I hope that I have made it clear that it is not a new classification. We are trying to clarify the existing classification, and to deal with the way in which some people have chosen to get around the law. It is important to recognise that. 
I hear what the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham says about young people. I am pleased to have support from some quarters for what we are doing. I have received letters from people concerned about the matter, and I know that the police are worried about it. I have said before that the open trading of those mushrooms in a way that misleads young people is potentially dangerous. 
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland cited a number of substances that he found on his internet  searches. Many different plants and flowers can have negative effects, but we have to deal with the situation as it is—how the substance is being marketed and where it stands in relation to the law. For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will support clause 21. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Financial provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Cheryl Gillan: I have a couple of points that I want to put to the Minister. I would like her to explain paragraph 55 of the explanatory notes. It states:
''This will be implemented once the expanded workforce is in place and frontline efficiencies have been achieved. There are downstream costs to the Criminal Justice System but these are expected to be balanced by savings arising from reduced offending.''
As we are examining the detail of the Bill, an explanation would be useful of what front-line efficiencies are expected, who will achieve them, and where the cuts will fall in order to create the expanded work force. I am not sure that I fully understand the provisions, and others have raised the matter with me. 
I want to look at the implications for public sector manpower, which also fall as a burden. Paragraph 61 says: 
''Clauses 1–6 and 8 will have a minimal impact on manpower'',
but clauses 8, 5 and 6 all have manpower implications. Indeed, even the estimate that police forces will require one additional supervising officer per day—presumably, on a 24-hour shift basis—represents quite an additional burden. 
Rather than that, however, I would like the Minister to explain the suggestion that 
 ''The extended detention provision will allow police forces to equip a custody suite''.
Do we have the correct financial provision to provide for custody suites? If not, there will be enormous issues about detaining people for a long time in police cells. In Operation Safeguard, police cells were used as prison cells because the prisons were overflowing. We must ensure that we have the correct safeguards and balances in place before the provisions bite and people can be detained for an extended period in police cells. Someone who is in a cell for the first time will be more vulnerable and susceptible to self-harm and suicide, and we do not want to inflict greater trauma on the individual or on police officers around the country. I would therefore like the Minister to explain those financial provisions.

Caroline Flint: On the efficiency savings to be achieved, I am pleased to say that because of the record resources we are putting into initiatives such as the drug interventions programme, we already have the basic structures in place in many areas with high levels of drug-related crime to meet the needs of those coming through the system. As we know, people are  being tested on charge, but they are also voluntarily being assessed. One issue that we have addressed is how to make better use of the resources provided under such schemes and of arrest referral workers. However, a large number of the people who are currently being charged are likely to be seen anyway, although we are now moving that forward to arrest.

Cheryl Gillan: Annexe A of the regulatory impact assessment states:
''Benefits are derived from the reduction in individuals' offending (and therefore of crime more generally) as a result of entering treatment.''
I hope that the Minister will not wait for the reductions to feed through before she increases resources.

Caroline Flint: As I said, we are already putting in a huge amount of resources anyway. Our estimates indicate that about 200 extra drugs workers will be funded under the spending review 2004. That will accommodate not only the additional assessments that result from the mandatory assessment provisions, but the follow-up appointments. As I said, we have already made substantial efficiency gains as a result of the better management of the different schemes. In fact, we have done appraisals of arrest-referral and drug-testing arrangements in a number of force areas, and we have produced guidance for those areas so that forces can improve their operation of these schemes. That has helped with a recent renewal of contracts. That experience is certainly helping.
We have tried to ensure that there is a better fit between, for example, the hours of drugs workers and the demands of clients. Sometimes, by simply changing the working of some of the drugs workers, we have made significant improvements in the number of cases dealt with by individual workers. However, we have built estimates into the spending review 2004 to accommodate some of those issues. 
The hon. Lady talked about the implications for police forces of extending the power to detain persons, and we debated custody suites. We think that about 20 to 30 police forces will choose to use the power to detain persons suspected of swallowing drugs, at a cost of about £15,000 to equip one custody suite. The total cost, therefore, is between £0.3 million and £0.45 million. In some respects it is for forces to consider how best they can deal with the type of criminal in question, having regard to the management of their capital and personnel resources. As I have said, I do not think that the facility is needed at every police station. It is something to be worked out locally, and it would be difficult for us to work it out nationally.

Cheryl Gillan: I have two worries. First, I am concerned about the scarcity of suitable accommodation at a police station to detain someone for that extended time. Secondly, I seek an undertaking from the Minister that the individual subject to the extended detention provision would never be taken to a prison to complete that period, because of the lack of suitable accommodation at a police station, with the result that they would in effect be on remand without having been charged.

Caroline Flint: I do not want prison places to be taken up by people from whom an attempt is being made to obtain evidence to help with the charging process. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady in more detail about some of the issues.
Our aim is to shut down loopholes—I know that I used the phrase about magic mushrooms, but it is also relevant to enforcement powers—that allow suspects to slow down the system, use up court time, prevent the law from being enforced efficiently and effectively, and interfere with the judicial process. We want to shut down those opportunities for people to block the process of the law unnecessarily, and to introduce a deterrent factor. 
Those initiatives have been discussed with the police, including through the Association of Chief Police Officers, and the police support them. I am pleased to say that the police have a very good funding settlement and record numbers of officers, and money to achieve what we want them to—catching criminals and achieving successful prosecutions and convictions. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 - Amendments and repeals

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Brian Iddon: I join DrugScope, Turning Point and others in applauding the Government for repealing section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which extended section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to include all illegal drugs, and which caused, at the time, great concern to those in the caring communities. Will my hon. Friend make it clear to people in the caring communities—particularly those who care for drug misusers and addicts—that section 8 still applies as it did previously? Will she point out the consequences of the Bill, assuming that it is passed? I think that that should be made clear.

Caroline Flint: Yes, I shall make that clear. We did not want people who work with drug misusers to be prosecuted for committing an offence because a drug user ends up using drugs in a care environment or on other premises, and it is important to clarify that. The Government's antisocial behaviour measures and powers to shut down crack houses have allowed us to ensure that there is a more appropriate way of dealing with illegal drug use on premises, and I understand that section 8 will continue to apply.
Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

New clause 1 - Inclusion of khat as a Class A drug

'In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (c. 38) (Class A drugs), in paragraph 1, insert at the appropriate place—''Khat which contains cathinone or cathine.''.'.—[Mrs. Gillan] 
Brought up, and read the First time.

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Classification of cannabis as Class B—
'(1) Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971[2] (which specifies the drugs which are subject to control under that Act) shall be amended as follows. 
(2) In paragraph (a) of Part I of that Schedule, insert at an appropriate place ''Cannabinol, except where contained in cannabis or cannabis resin'' and ''Cannabinol derivatives''. 
(3) In paragraph (a) of Part II of that Schedule, insert at an appropriate place ''Cannabis and cannabis resin'' shall be deleted. 
(4) In paragraph (a) of Part III of that Schedule, ''Cannabinol'', ''Cannabinol derivatives'' and ''Cannabis and cannabis resin'' shall be deleted. 
(5) In paragraph 1(d) of Part III of that Schedule, ''cannabinol or a cannabinol derivative'' shall be deleted.'.{**we**}

Cheryl Gillan: New clause 1 has been referred to in anticipation of reaching it because it seeks to focus the Minister's mind on the classification of khat, which contains cathinone or cathine. Khat is a green-leaf shrub that has been chewed for a long time by people who live in the Horn of Africa on the Arabian peninsula, but unfortunately it has recently turned up in Europe, including in the UK. It has been particularly prevalent among immigrants and refugees from countries such as Somalia, Ethiopia and Yemen. Khat is imported and sold at greengrocers in areas such as east London in a very similar way to magic mushrooms. It sells at about £4 a bunch, but remains potent for only a few days after it is picked. It is strongest when the fresh leaves are chewed, but it can also be made into a tea or chewable paste.
The khat plant is not controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, but its active ingredients, cathinone and cathine, are class C drugs—a condition that is similar to magic mushrooms. Cathinone may not lawfully be possessed or supplied except under licence for research, although cathine may be prescribed. 
Khat is illegal in America, Canada, Norway and Sweden, and I understand that it was controlled in Tanzania, Kenya and Somalia. It is a stimulant drug with effects similar to those of amphetamines. Chewing it makes people talkative, suppresses their appetite, and can cause insomnia, anorexia and anxiety. It makes people irritable, angry and possibly violent, and if hon. Members have time to cruise the internet, like the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, there are horrible stories about domestic violence being brought on by it. I am aware of the Government's measures to relieve domestic violence problems in this country. Psychological dependence can also result from regular use of the drug, and users become hooked and get very depressed and low if they do not use it. 
Reports among the Yemeni population indicate that khat is consumed by three in four Yemenis. In Yemen, fairly accurate research shows that khat use accounts for more than 40 per cent. of the average family budget, which is an alarming statistic, especially as chronic khat abuse results in all the symptoms of  amphetamine addiction. It also results in hypertension and gastric disorders, which cost our national health service more and more. We also export it. There are real problems, because I understand that some 18 tonnesof it were seized on flights from the UK to the US in 1998, which is the last time for which I could find figures available. 
I know from the Minister's earlier answer that the Government have no plans to control khat at the moment, but that the advisory council is keeping its legal status under review. I understood that the Home Office's drugs and alcohol research unit was to embark on a detailed study to assess the level of harm caused by khat. It was expected that the final report would be completed in September 2004, with the interim findings being available in April 2004. I hope the Minister will give us the progress of that, because I have not seen that report, and I am not aware whether the promise made in her answer of 8 September 2003 was actually kept. The reference is the answer to Question 127515 at column 60W. Apparently, this report was going to inform future decisions on whether khat would be controlled. It is absolutely correct that khat misuse is part of a wider diversity issue. I would have hoped, however, that, having made that promise, the Minister would come to this Committee and tell us exactly what the Government are going to do about it. 
New clause 4 is familiar ground for the Minister, and I think we have been around the houses on this debate several times. I am sure that she is not going to agree with me, but it is the classification of cannabis. Back in October 2001, the previous Home Secretary, who has had to step down, announced the change to the classification of cannabis when he was giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee. He had to go through the hoop that required him to consult the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and he was going to look at the results of the so-called Lambeth experiment, which, if the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) is anything to go by, was nothing but a complete and utter disaster. 
Despite the adverse results from the Lambeth experiment, cannabis was reclassified in January 2004. The message went out, up and down the country, that the Government believed that we should not tolerate cannabis. At best, it was tolerance of possession and dealing, and at worst it was that the taking of it was legal. There is no point in the Minister pretending otherwise. I have even had children say to my face that taking cannabis is legal. The confusion was, I suppose, accepted by the Minister, because she had to spend £1 million of taxpayers' money on a campaign to try to clarify the situation, solving the problem of public confusion on the legality of cannabis. 
The cursory evaluation of the campaign said that a survey of a representative sample of 14 to 70 year olds showed that 81 per cent. agreed that smoking cannabis was harmful. Although those results were evaluated for a campaign on or around 17 May 2004, even if we just start to cruise the internet and pick up the odd article, we will find that—[Interruption.]

Roger Gale: Order. The Chairman is finding it rather difficult to hear the debate.

Cheryl Gillan: The Observer—not necessarily a friend of those who think as I do about this drug—admitted:
''Not for the first time, the Police Federation is confused. As we report today, the union representing beat officers believes that the downgrading of cannabis from a Class B to a Class C drug has left its members unclear about what to do about the rise in the numbers of people openly smoking marijuana on the street. They say that declassification has led to a casual culture of lawlessness and that police officers are provoked by people smoking joints and believing they are above the law.''
Reclassification has led to confusion over the status of cannabis, and it is now in the same category as tranquilisers and steroids. 
Another problem was that the drug was downgraded at a time when all the evidence seemed to be rolling in of there being more dangers. Professor Robin Murray, the professor of psychiatry at Maudsley hospital, showed that cannabis consumption exacerbates the symptoms of schizophrenia-like psychosis and can lead to panic attacks, paranoia and long-term mental illness. Smoking cannabis is worse than smoking a cigarette. The Minister is familiar with the arguments about additional costs and the extra damage caused by tetrahydrocannabinols. Cannabis is getting stronger. Whereas in the '60s and '70s I gather that the strength was about 10 mg in the average spliff, it is now about 150 mg. 
The new clause gives the Minister the opportunity to admit that she was wrong and reclassify the drug to class B. That would send out the right message on this dangerous drug, and ensure that the damage that has occurred and the confused messages that she and the former Home Secretary have been responsible for will be repaired. 
There was a letter today in The Daily Telegraph—I hope that the Minister reads The Daily Telegraph because it carries the odd useful article—from someone whose name and address was supplied, entitled, ''Cannabis is turning our youth into dopes.'' The letter stated: 
''I agree entirely that 'cannabis is a 'ruiner' of young men'. I have witnessed this in my sons who, now in their mid-twenties, are just recovering from the loss of 'drive, motivation and concentration' as they ruefully and belatedly establish their careers, having almost missed out on successful higher education.
We parents, in our innocence, thought they were just being teenagers when they were paranoid, apparently unable to move faster than a slow shuffle and had a total lack of concern for their future. Oh, how Harry Enfield's Kevin helped us keep a sense of humour.
They, in turn, have witnessed friends slide into depression owing to excessive dope smoking. I have a friend whose daughter ended up in a mental hospital for dope-induced depression.
As for the dope-smoking parents . . . they are encouraging an illegal activity that ruins young people's lives. It is to be hoped that the children of such parents will do what so many teenagers do and reject their elders' lifestyle.''
That is a timely reminder of what can happen. 
I would also like to pay tribute to Mrs. Mary Brett, who many hon. Members know is a teacher at Dr. Challoner's grammar school in my constituency. She has always been scrupulously fair in the information that she provides, and her fears for our  young people are based on many years of teaching experience. I hope that the Minister will seriously reconsider, and I am giving her that opportunity today.

Alistair Carmichael: I should first apologise to the Committee for being unable to remain here beyond 5.15 pm—I will not hear the Minister's response and I will not be present at the conclusion of the Committee's business. Therefore, without incurring your wrath, Mr. Gale, I shall stray just for a second and express my gratitude to you and Mr. Illsley, other members of the Committee, officials and others who have made our deliberations so smooth and, for the most part, enjoyable if not always exciting.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham was right to draw parallels between khat and magic mushrooms—my thinking is informed by the same parallels. My argument in relation to magic mushrooms is that the classification of drugs is due a review. For us in this Committee to classify khat in this way without proper consultation would not be particularly helpful. For that reason, I fear that there is an element in this of making policy on the hoof, so I am not minded to support the new clause. 
I was struck by the description that the hon. Lady gave of the effects of khat—from my past life as a director of a women's refuge in Aberdeenshire, I recognised them as being not very different from those of alcohol. When we think about the classification of drugs, and the way in which we treat them, we have to look at them in the round, rather than considering just those that we currently regard as being controlled.

Cheryl Gillan: The fundamental difference is that we know the problem that this drug causes and we have the opportunity to place it in the same category as that in which the Minister has placed magic mushrooms. Why lose the opportunity at this stage? It seems logical to me.

Alistair Carmichael: It would not be wise for us simply to do that at the end of the Committee stage, without the proper consultation or the proper advice from the relevant Government bodies. We shall have to agree to differ on that point.
With regard to the new clause seeking the reclassification of cannabis as a class B drug, as I indicated earlier, I was not particularly impressed—although my party supported it—with the reclassification to class C. Reclassifying it along with things such as anabolic steroids and painkillers, and tranquilisers such as diazepam and temazepam was not helpful and I feared that it would cause confusion. I should bring to the Minister's attention the words of Sheriff Douglas Cusine, sitting in Aberdeen Sheriff court last Friday. He said—I am quoting from memory; I do not have it in front of me—that he found it difficult to see exactly what the Government sought to achieve with that reclassification. In his view it had led to significant confusion among people who were appearing before him in a very busy court. The sheriff is an eminently sensible, well qualified lawyer, who, in an earlier incarnation, had the misfortune to  try to teach me conveyancing when he was Professor Cusine. Otherwise, he is a man to whom the Government should be prepared to listen. 
Given the danger of confusion, I would not be minded to support the hon. Lady's amendment. To reclassify a reclassified drug would merely heap confusion on top of confusion. I must stress again that, rather than mucking around with categories that are no longer fit for purpose, we should look at classification as a whole.

Eric Joyce: I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham had to say on new clause 4. On one level, much of it was simple common sense. She was right about the effect on users of khat and cannabis. However, that the purpose of a classification system is to make it clear that there are different grades. If we were to upgrade both those drugs back up to B, it would create additional confusion. There are three levels: we understand that class A drugs are very serious, B is a bit less and C is a bit less again. It would send out the wrong signals to change it the other way. The three grades work well.
It is also important to say that the drug of choice of most older adults, probably most of us here, is alcohol. The abuse of alcohol creates far more trouble in our high streets and our homes than does the use of khat or cannabis. If we think about the things that take up police time, alcohol abuse takes up far more police time and leads to far more offences than khat or cannabis. The latter tend to keep people relatively quiet. Very few people commit violent offences when they are taking khat or cannabis.

Tom Harris: In the spirit of helpfulness, does my hon. Friend believe that we should classify alcohol as category B?

Eric Joyce: I would be very reluctant to classify alcohol as category B.
This debate goes on when we talk about how we should classify any type of drug. Ultimately, one of the most serious drugs is one that we tolerate enormously in society—everyone is this Room uses it, in moderation, of course—and it is alcohol. 
The hon. Lady mentioned the Police Federation and its view that the policy would lead to confusion. My instinct would be that the Police Federation would welcome any policy that would enable them to direct the resources appropriately towards the use of alcohol, which leads to other offences. I suspect that the net effect of getting it right would be not just to reduce the abuse of alcohol and drugs, but to reduce the total number of offences in the high street, in our homes and in all our communities. 
I cannot remember the figures off the top of my head, but I believe that there has been a substantial net gain in terms of thousand man and woman hours that police officers saved by directing efforts properly towards far more serious and important offences. That is not to say that we should be casual about any kind of drug abuse, but we want to direct the police to the more serious offences. I am thinking about the  kind of thing that I see when I walk about my constituency on a Friday or Saturday evening downtown. It is alcohol that causes most of those offences. 
I am thinking not only about the abuse of alcohol but about the offences that lead on from it. A couple of months ago I was burgled by some guy who just happened to be walking past my house. He climbed in through the front window and thought that it would be a good idea to steal a few things from the living room and then to walk out of the front door. He was drunk, and I had left the front window off the latch. That is the kind of thing that people will do when they are high and excited. Alcohol does that. Young men are much more likely to get into fights and to commit violent offences when they are drunk late on a Saturday night or early on a Sunday morning. 
I believe that the classification system that we have is right. I recognise that the abuse of any drug is a bad thing, but the particular drug that concerns me is the drug that causes violence on the high street and causes far more serious offences than people using khat and cannabis. New clause 4 is therefore a bad idea.

Henry Bellingham: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. I do not want to detain the Committee for very long, so I will not refer to new clause 1, but I want to say a quick word about new clause 4 and the reclassification of cannabis. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. She made it quite clear that the main concern is about what signal that sends to the wider community. In the Government's document ''Tackling drugs. Changing lives'', on page 9, under the heading ''Reducing availability: putting drug dealers out of business'', there is a big tick next to a paragraph that states that the Government have been:
''Focusing efforts against Class A drugs by reclassifying cannabis. Arrests for cannabis possession have fallen by 30 per cent. since reclassification, enabling police time to be released to deal with Class A drugs.''
It does not give any evidence that that has been achieved; it is simply a general statement. I would question—

Michael Clapham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Henry Bellingham: I wish to make progress.
My hon. Friend referred to what has been going on in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—the so-called Lambeth experiment. I have spoken to police officers in Vauxhall and Lambeth who have made it absolutely clear that they are extremely unhappy about what has been going on, especially in Brixton, where there has been a proliferation of street dealers who are using the reclassification of cannabis as a Trojan horse to peddle more hard drugs. That is the main concern and it is a great pity that the Government have not looked very carefully at what has been going on in Lambeth and Brixton. Why have they not done a proper assessment and analysis of what has been going on? Why have they not listened to what the Police Federation has been saying? 
I find it interesting that the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, said the other day that he would bear down very hard on middle class cocaine parties. He made no mention at all of cannabis. The recent report by the Royal College of Physicians makes it clear that persistent and regular cannabis use can inflict substantial damage, including damage to the brain. Youngsters, at a time when their brains are developing, are particularly vulnerable to that.

Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman is right that cannabis is harmful, but does he not accept that cocaine is a far more serious drug? The commissioner is quite right, and I am sure that the Royal College of Physicians would also say that cocaine has an even greater impact on the health of the individual. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that?

Henry Bellingham: I entirely agree, but that is not really the argument. The question is: should the Government have reclassified cannabis? Have they sent the right signal in doing so? Have resources been refocused and redeployed in a way that enables the police and the Government to bear down on hard drugs? I am not convinced about that, but I am convinced that the wrong signals are being sent.
I am convinced that a lot of youngsters are confused. I have spoken to a lot of teachers and youth groups in my constituency, people who work in drug treatment and members of the primary care trust. They are also concerned that the signal being sent to recreational cannabis users is that it is okay to smoke cannabis, as it has been reclassified. People are confused and the police are confused. I would like far more analysis of those areas where we know a problem exists and where there has been a focus on that problem but no proper analysis. 
On that basis, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, who spoke to the new clause extremely competently. I hope that we will have a vote on it and that it will be the start of a campaign for the reclassification to be reversed.

Tom Harris: I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and the spirit of the new clause, because the Government have a case to answer on the mixed signals that have gone out with the reclassification of cannabis.
A good example is what happened in Scotland last year. A number of ''entrepreneurs'' read the news about reclassification and decided that it would be perfectly in order for them to open a cannabis café in Edinburgh, simply by reading not what the law was but what the media reported the change in the law was. I might be wrong, but I remember that the café was called the Purple Haze café, and that it opened its doors to much publicity and did brisk business for almost 30 seconds before the police closed it down. There was talk of the same people opening a similar café in Glasgow, but fortunately Strathclyde police and Glasgow city council made it quite clear that that would of course not be allowed.

Cheryl Gillan: That is a similar problem to that which my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) had in his constituency,  where people thought it perfectly legal to open a cannabis café.

Tom Harris: I am sure that many hon. Members have suffered from the crossed lines that resulted from the Government's announcement. However, I do not think that the fact that people decided to take the wrong message was the Government's fault directly. There was a certain degree of deliberate misunderstanding of the message on the part of people pursuing their own purposes.
This is not the first time that it has been necessary to explain legislation rather than change it, and I am sure that the same arguments will be made in the House tomorrow. Sometimes it is better to explain and clarify existing legislation than it is to introduce a new clause and change it. When people deliberately misunderstood what the Government were trying to do, they did so for their own selfish reasons. They were a bit dishonest in claiming that the Government, in reclassifying cannabis from B to C, were somehow instituting the same kind of drug culture that exists in Amsterdam. That was clearly never the intention. It was never the effect in law. People who came to those conclusions are not being entirely honest. 
The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) claimed that there is no evidence so far that a change in police priorities to focus on hard drugs has had any major effect. I do not know what discussions he has had with his own chief constable, but I have received positive feedback from Strathclyde police about the measure that the Government introduced in 2003. I represent a part of Glasgow that has the highest heroin usage figures in western Europe, not just in the United Kingdom. It is a small city geographically and it has 16,000 chaotic drug users. Those are not cannabis users. They are certainly not khat users. They are heroin addicts who are responsible for the vast majority of theft, burglary and shoplifting. 
As someone who holds regular surgeries and has to listen to people who have been the victims of drug-related crime, I am more than happy for the police to focus far more of their resources on the people who deal in and use hard drugs—although that is a slightly different matter—than on focusing disproportionate amounts of resources on those who deal in and use cannabis.

Mark Todd: Would my hon. Friend be surprised to find that although my constituency is very different from his, I have received no representations from my local police about confusion over this issue? Admittedly, I have not had entrepreneurs seeking to set up shops in Swadlincote to serve cannabis users in my area, but the police have said that they have a clear focus on the drug problems in South Derbyshire and are satisfied with the way that the law seems to function. We clearly get different messages from different people, with different motivations.

Tom Harris: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The experience of other hon. Members leads to the same conclusion. In Scotland, the Government's message  was even further confused because the police cannot caution people. The situation for anyone who possesses cannabis in Scotland is exactly as it was before. They will be arrested and charged because they cannot be cautioned. The message came from the British media that this was a reclassification, but in practice nothing has changed in Scotland, which made the whole café fiasco even more bizarre.
The new clause is well intentioned. I would not seek to make party political capital here. Every Member wants the same ends. We all want to see a drastic reduction in the use of cannabis, heroin, khat or whatever, although we may disagree on the means of achieving that. I hope that over the next few months and years we can continue to have that dialogue. Part of that dialogue must surely be to consult on measures and to reclassify in either direction rather than simply to use the opportunity of this Bill without that consultation, which has helped us and informed us in the past. I hope that the hon. Lady will see fit to withdraw the new clause in the spirit of co-operation and in acknowledgment that the Government are trying to achieving the same ends as her party, albeit by different means.

Angela Watkinson: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham on new clause 4, as I entirely share her views on the declassification of cannabis. The Government's policy is highly misguided. Cannabis is accepted as causing psychosis and depression, and it has a demotivating effect on students and in the workplace. One of its most harmful properties is the fact that it leads users on to other, harder drugs. I know that not every cannabis user progresses to harder drugs, but police say that almost every hard drug user started on cannabis. Notwithstanding all the other reasons, that reason alone should be sufficient to stop it being reclassified downwards from class B to class C.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk drew attention to the drug strategy progress report, which, in a paragraph headed ''Focusing efforts against Class A drugs by reclassifying cannabis'', says that arrests for possession of cannabis have fallen by 30 per cent.—of course they have, because people are not being arrested for possession—and that it has 
''enabled police time to be released to deal with Class A drugs.'
That is the main focus of policy. I can think of no other offence where that could be used as a yardstick. For example, one would not say that because burglary was so prolific, one should no longer bother to enforce the law against it except when violence was used. I draw the comparison because cannabis use is so prolific and uses so much police time; the reason given for withdrawing the previous policy of arresting for possession was simply that there were so many cases. 
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham drew attention to a letter in The Daily Telegraph today, and I noticed a small article about cannabis use in today's edition of The Times. I am sure that the Minister is aware that the United Kingdom,  France and the Czech Republic have the highest incidence of cannabis use in Europe. The French Government are so concerned about the rising use of cannabis that they announced today that they have allocated €10 million to publicise its harmful effects. I hope that the Minister will compare that message from France with the message being given to young people here, many of whom believe not only that it is legal but, even worse, that it is harmless. That is the most difficult problem to overcome—they think that it is all right, that it does not matter, and that nothing will happen. 
I am concerned about the comparative classification of drugs, even the classifications that we have given them in today's debate. Magic mushrooms are classified as class A. We learned in Tuesday's debate that codeine is classified as class B. We now have cannabis being classed as class C, along with steroids and valium. The comparative classifications are rather puzzling, and especially odd is the fact that cannabis is two classifications lower than magic mushrooms. 
I ask the Minister to consider carefully the range of drug classifications—and particularly of cannabis, because it is now considered to be harmless and legal by so many young people who, if they develop the habit of taking it, are in danger of being introduced to other, harder drugs. We all know that many drug dealers are poly-drug dealers and have drugs other than cannabis for sale. Young people using cannabis will be offered harder drugs when they are buying. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham in her quest for the reclassification of cannabis. I hope that new clause 4 will be put to the vote.

Michael Clapham: I rise to address the point made by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk. He said that the Government's drugs strategy is not working as set out in the document he referred to. I want to make him aware that in my constituency and the other two constituencies across Barnsley the local crime and disorder reduction partnership commissioned Sheffield Hallam university to carry out a study, mapping the drug market. In so doing, it found that the drug market in Barnsley is basically made up of three levels: there is heroin, and most of our addicts are on heroin; we have a small group who use cocaine, but crack cocaine has not yet taken off; and we have a well embedded cannabis culture.
When the police were able to concentrate their efforts on the class A drug, rather than being tied up by concentrating efforts on the class C drug, cannabis, they were able to bring down crime. Much of the crime in Barnsley was acquisitive crime, generally carried out by class A drug users—heroin users. That concentration of police effort has reduced crime across the piece, but particularly burglary. Burglaries have fallen by 31 per cent. over this last year. Stealing from cars has been reduced by more than 22 per cent. Therefore, the concentration of effort away from cannabis to class A drugs in my crime and disorder reduction partnership locality has brought those improvements forward. 
We have something in the region of 1,500 problematic drug users. They are heroin users. We  find little in the sense of problematic use of cannabis, although I have no doubt that when it is mixed with alcohol, it may well fuel antisocial behaviour. The big problem, however, is heroin. The focusing of effort by the police on tackling that class A drug has reduced crime enormously, and has made people feel safer on the streets. So I say to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk that the Government's drug strategy is working.

Brian Iddon: One of the things that is emerging from the drugs debate—not only this debate, but from all debates currently going on across communities—is that we need to look at the classification of drugs. I strongly agree with that. I assume that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will be the correct authority to do so.
The Co-ordination Centre for the Assessment and Monitoring of New Drugs Report—the so-called CAM report—that the Dutch produced when they were looking at the risks of psilocybin and psilocin carries out a very important risk analysis. We need to develop a system of risk analysis along these lines in this country, if we have not already got it. I do not know what the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs does itself. We need risk analysis that ladders drugs, from the top to the bottom. Then we tailor the punishment according to the harm that the drugs produce. 
For example, with the two compounds that we discussed earlier—psilocybin and psilocin—the report gives four categories. ''Health of the individual'' got a 1.8 score, which is no risk. ''Risk to public health and society in general'' got a 2.9 score, a low risk. ''Risk to public order and security of the general public'' was given a score of 2.5 for those chemicals, again a low risk. ''Criminal involvement''? There was none in the case of psilocybin and psilocin. That was given a score of 1.8: no risk. Psilocin and psilocybin cannot be differentiated from each other, in the same way in which it is hard to differentiate between heroin and morphine, because one is converted into the other in the body. That puts paddos, which is what the Dutch call those two drugs, way below gammahydroxybutrate, which has caused concern in this country, and it puts it way below drugs such as heroin and morphine. We could adopt a similar procedure and risk analysis on all the illicit drugs that are classified according to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and could punish people accordingly. 
I speak against both new clauses for the following reasons. I admit that I do not know much about the use of khat, but it worries me that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has tabled new clause 1, which seeks to classify khat as a class A drug equal to morphine and cocaine. I say that I know nothing about khat, but I am sure that I would have known about it if it had been as harmful as morphine and cocaine.

Cheryl Gillan: I am simply taking the lead from the Minister, who put magic mushrooms into class A.

Brian Iddon: The hon. Lady heard what I had to say about that earlier, which is why I am arguing, as other  Members such as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland have argued, that we really need to reconsider the classification of drugs and, as I say, develop some sort of risk analysis process to do that.

Cheryl Gillan: Would the hon. Gentleman consider including in that risk analysis the results from the Brixton experiment? I do not want to knock any results that the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) has had in his area, but the hon. Member for Vauxhall stated that the experiment in Lambeth led to drug dealers pushing harder drugs into the area using their cannabis client base. That would need to be part of the risk assessment, which completely defeats the argument deployed by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East.

Brian Iddon: I shall discuss Brixton and will answer that point in a moment.
The Government argue that all their legislation should be based on evidence and consultation. I ask the Minister and the hon. Lady what consultation we have had with the community that largely uses khat. Khat has been brought into this country by another culture, just as the West Indians brought cannabis into the country as part of their culture, music and traditions. We should consult widely, and not only with the Somalian community. We should also consult the ACMD and others who know far more about khat than any of us do on this Committee. 
I do not accept the hon. Lady's suggestion that the Brixton experiment was an utter disaster. The problem was that it was conducted here in the capital in the full glare of publicity. There were television cameras, radio, and all the international media. It was an experiment that could never have succeeded in the way in which the hon. Lady wanted it to, because it received so much publicity that it sucked dealers into Brixton. It was not carried out on the quiet in a drug-using area of Manchester. Things were wrong with it, but so far as I could tell, things were also right with it. The police, for example, could concentrate on hard drugs, and they had some success, even in Brixton.

Cheryl Gillan: How does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that the Metropolitan Police chief, Sir John Stevens, said that he regretted the Brixton experiment?

Brian Iddon: I do not want to comment on everything that the hon. Lady throws at me, because time is short.

Caroline Flint: If I am correct, Sir John Stevens was actually making the point that my hon. Friend is making, which is that it might have been better on reflection to conduct the experiment across boroughs so that there was no displacement, rather than focusing on Brixton, because the media focus created problems. The experiment itself was not a problem; it was the way in which the media treated it, and the fact that it was conducted in isolation from other London boroughs. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Brian Iddon: Many myths have been quoted this afternoon, such as that cannabis causes mental illness and is a gateway drug to hard drugs—[Hon. Members: ''Where is the evidence?'']
It is not so much about where the evidence is, but about recognising that such statements are largely mythical. Let us take the issue of mental illness. The all-party group on drugs misuse carried out a dual diagnosis inquiry in which we discovered that about 42 per cent.—that figure is higher now—of the people in this country who misuse drugs are also mentally ill. Mentally ill people are predisposed to the use of drugs; it is not just that drugs make people mentally ill. Some drugs do make some people mentally ill, but that cannot be quoted as a generalisation, even with cannabis.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Brian Iddon: I am sorry, but I cannot take any more interventions. I want to give the Minister time to respond to all my points.
I recommend a book by Zimmer and Morgan called ''Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence'', which is published by the Lindesmith Center. Bearing in mind the hon. Lady's current position on the Opposition Benches, I think that she ought to read that book if she has not done so, and consider the evidence that it presents. It presents a very balanced argument. 
I shall try to deal with one final myth: cannabis is getting stronger. To which species of cannabis is the hon. Lady referring? There are 23 varieties. I made this point on Second Reading. She is referring to skunk, in which the tetrahydrocannabinol content is very high, but there are 23 varieties of cannabis, starting with ones with low THC content. In the Netherlands, the use of proper education allows people to start at the lower rather than the higher end of that spectrum. The problem with the sale of cannabis in Britain is that people do not know what they are buying on the street: one can even buy cannabis from Morocco that is full of camel dung.

Caroline Flint: I will deal first with new clause 1. I understand the desire to protect families from the serious consequences of the misuse of khat. I recall that on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) spoke about his experiences of dealing with that problem in his constituency.
The misuse of khat is a particular problem in the Somali and Yemeni communities. Last year, I dealt with an Adjournment debate on khat, which was attended by representatives from those communities, and I had the chance to speak to them afterwards about their concerns. Linked to those communities is the geographical issue of where khat misuse is a problem, which is mainly in Liverpool, Cardiff, and west and east London. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) caught me in the Corridor the other day to talk about some of the problems there. Her concern, which is based on anecdotal evidence following her  discussions with the police, is that khat use may be extending beyond those traditional ethnic cultural communities. 
There is little evidence that khat misuse is widespread, but that should not prevent us from considering its use as a matter of general concern, and as constituting a social problem. Usually, when we consider the issues surrounding controlled drugs, we look at them in the context of the wider population, but we should be mindful that khat use might be taking a hold within communities and causing severe problems.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the Minister for looking on this matter sympathetically. In 2003, Customs and Excise estimated that between seven and 10 tonnes of the plant was being imported into the UK, but there is evidence that that figure is growing. Has the report that she promised been produced?

Caroline Flint: I understand that the report will be published in May. We have asked the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders to deliver on that, but I will say more about that later. I am conscious of time, and want to have time to speak about the cannabis issue.
Khat is a leaf that is traditionally chewed, but it can be made into tea. It is grown only in east Africa and southern Arabia. It gives the user a mild, amphetamine-like euphoria, and usually takes about half an hour of chewing to take effect. It is typically used by the older males in the family, for whom its use was traditionally a social activity. There are associated physical health problems, such as lack of sleep, food intake, related oral infections and an increase in levels of aggression. Colleagues have raised with me the issue of domestic violence associated with men using khat in a prolonged way. 
The impact of khat is more social than physical. Not only is there the issue of domestic violence, but because of regular usage, men are unable to sustain themselves in work. There are therefore high levels of unemployment and such men are likely to be dependent on state benefits. That can create huge domestic tension, especially when spending money on khat becomes an economic drain on the family's income, and as I have said, it can cause increased aggression in the home. 
We are keeping a close eye on the matter. Two pieces of separate research—one by Turning Point and the other by NACRO—that we have supported are being carried out into the impact of khat misuse. We look to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for advice on classified substances and controlled drugs. I am not in a position to say whether khat should be classified as a class A drug or at all. The question was last considered in 1988, and the ACMD has discussed the matter several times in more recent years. 
Khat does not fit neatly into the usual profiles of drug misuse. We have spoken about a link between heroin, cocaine and crime, but there is no evidence of such a link for khat because it is not an illegal drug. That is not to say that there is not a good case for  controlling khat under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The best way ahead is to request the ACMD to undertake a comprehensive study on khat, especially in light of the latest research. I shall write to the chairman of the ACMD, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, asking him to undertake such a study and to advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on its findings before the end of 2005.

Cheryl Gillan: I am disappointed because the Home Office's drugs and alcohol research unit was supposed to embark on a detailed study to assess the level of harm in September 2003, and a final report was due by September 2004.
I notice that we are getting towards the close of the Committee, so while I am on my feet I hope that the Minister agrees with me that we have been well served by all the members of the Committee and the staff who have been keeping watch over us, including the Hansard reporters, the Clerk, our two Chairmen and the Minister's officials, who were helpful to me during the initial stages of the Bill.

Caroline Flint: I shall get my thank yous in quickly to you and your officials, Mr. Gale, to my officials and everyone who has served on the Committee for a stimulating and exciting debate on drugs, which I hope has been a learning curve for some. I am minded to ask the ACMD to advise us and go into detail on classification, but that should not stop what we are doing in the Home Office to engage with the communities concerned and carry out our own research.
As the hon. Lady indicated, I am not prepared to accept the new clause. I have listened to my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce), for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris), for Bolton, South-East and for Barnsley, West and Penistone, and it is clear from their experiences, which match our data, that the reclassification of cannabis has not resulted in the doom and gloom predicted by the Opposition. 
The reality is that there has been approximately a one-third decrease in arrests for cannabis possession, and we have saved some 199,000 hours of police time nationally. There has been a rise in possession figures because street warning and confiscation are easier and more efficient than arrest. Reclassification has not stopped the police engaging with people using cannabis in the street; it has led to them confiscating more cannabis from people. As the police do not have to go through the process of arrest if it is not a case of flagrant abuse in the street, they have been eager to deal with it quickly there and then. In terms of young people's understandings, our evaluations show that 93 per cent. of under-18s understood that cannabis was illegal. 
As long as the hon. Members for North-West Norfolk and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) continue to peddle their distortions on what we have done in relation to cannabis—

Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I should like to vote on new clause 4. Could you advise on how best to achieve that? 
It being five minutes to Six o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order 83D and the Order of the Committee [27 January] to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. 
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 4 - CLASSIFICATION OF CANNABIS AS CLASS B

'(1) Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971[2] (which specifies the drugs which are subject to control under that Act) shall be amended as follows. 
(2) In paragraph (a) of Part I of that Schedule, insert at an appropriate place ''Cannabinol, except where contained in cannabis or cannabis resin'' and ''Cannabinol derivatives''. 
(3) In paragraph (a) of Part II of that Schedule, insert at an appropriate place ''Cannabis and cannabis resin'' shall be deleted. 
(4) In paragraph (a) of Part III of that Schedule, ''Cannabinol'', ''Cannabinol derivatives'' and ''Cannabis and cannabis resin'' shall be deleted. 
(5) In paragraph 1(d) of Part III of that Schedule, ''cannabinol or a cannabinol derivative'' shall be deleted.'. —[Mrs. Gillan.] 
Brought up, and read the First time. 
Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived.

Roger Gale: I thank members of the Committee for the courtesy and good humour with which they have conducted proceedings. On behalf of the Committee I offer my thanks to the officers of the House.
Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
Committee rose at three minutes to Six o'clock.